The Most Direct Means to Eternal Bliss (Michael Langford)
Second-Rate Advaita Vedanta
[My 1-star Amazon review (NDA) of “The Most Direct Means to Eternal Bliss†by Michael Langford.]
I first read this text a number of years ago; then it went into storage. I received my copy from storage yesterday; I re-read it last night, and tonight I’m ready to review it.
The author, Michael Langford, is not shy about his spiritual status or the value of this book. He claims. In January of 2004, his “ego, sorrow and suffering came to its final end, and what remained is Infinite-Eternal-Awareness-Love-Bliss.†Regarding this text, he writes, “This book is filled with hundreds of unique precious gems.â€
First off, I wouldn’t place a plugged nickel on Langford’s being Self-realized. In my estimation, he’a about as Enlightened as Jed McKenna. (See my one-star review of “Spiritual Enlightenment, the Damnedest Thing.â€) He offers no description of his Enlightened state, and like Jed, has no public presence. If he were tuly Enlightened, he would doubtless be prominently, publicly present. In this book, he claims he was clueless after 27 years of spiritual seeking and wondered: “is the ‘I AM’ the ‘I thought’ or is the ‘I am’ just my present awareness.†But then he had a revelation and discovered the direct means to Eternal Bliss—“My awareness watching my awareness.†And presto! A few years later, he’s as Self-realized as Jesus, Buddha, and Ramana Maharshi. I say that’s about as likely as Berserk Obozo supporting Rand Paul rather than Mrs. Bubba Clinton for president in 2016.
Secondly, whereas Langford claims this text is replete with “hundreds of unique precious gems,†I couldn’t find a single one. All I found was a second-rate Advaita Vedanta text that endlessly repeated itself and never went beyond surface-level directives.
Because this is just a book review and not a book, I’ll critique just a small sample of Langford’s “gemsâ€:Â
Langford writes, “Thoughts are the words of your language in your mind.†This is wrong. Words are visual-auditory symbols that denote concepts. Thoughts are mental constructs involved in the process of perceptual-conceptual identification and integration.
Langford writes, “Ego is the thought I.†No, it’s not. Animals don’t have the thought I, but they clearly have egos. Langford continues, “Ego is thinking.†No, it’s not. Enlightened beings continue to think after Self-realization. In reality, the ego is the separate-self sense and activity, which doesn’t necessarily include thinking. A la Eckhart Tolle, Langford tells us, “The ego is insane. This is true for all humans.†Actually, the rational ego is very (biologically) sane, because it seeks to ethically preserve its own well-being as well as that of its loved ones, which, in the case of a humanitarian, can include the whole of humanity.
Speaking of thinking, it’s an activity that Langford doesn’t do all that well or deeply. For example, he informs us that the Self is a single awareness, but then, incongruently, he repeatedly informs us: “The Self is the background of awareness. But he never tells us what this background is or how it differs from the one awareness.
The biggest joke of this book is the primary method that Langford pushes: “Awareness watching awareness.†He tells us there is one awareness, but if this is the case, how can there be an awareness that observes and an awareness that is observed? In truth, awareness can never be an object; it is always the eternal Subject, which knows and sees but can never be known or seen.
According to Langford, “Many spiritual teachings have maps or lists of stages or signs of progress. All such maps or lists are false. There are no uniform signs or stages.†In constrast to Langford, I say there are uniform signs and stages, and this is the case because the gross and subtle structures of all humans are the same.
This text is bereft of an esoteric dimension. Unlike Ramana Maharshi’s teachings, there is nothing about Shakti, Kundalini, samskaras, the Heart-on-the-right, Amrita Nadi, the various samadhis, etc. In short, it is a superficial spiritual text.
Because this text is genuine Advaita Vedanta and not counterfeit neo-Advaita Vedanta, I would ordinarily, despite its flaws, give it two stars; but because the author makes untenable claims about his text’s greatness and his own Self-realization, I can only in good conscience give it one.
[My 1-star Amazon review (NDA) of “The Most Direct Means to Eternal Bliss†by Michael Langford.]
I first read this text a number of years ago; then it went into storage. I received my copy from storage yesterday; I re-read it last night, and tonight I’m ready to review it.
The author, Michael Langford, is not shy about his spiritual status or the value of this book. He claims. In January of 2004, his “ego, sorrow and suffering came to its final end, and what remained is Infinite-Eternal-Awareness-Love-Bliss.†Regarding this text, he writes, “This book is filled with hundreds of unique precious gems.â€
First off, I wouldn’t place a plugged nickel on Langford’s being Self-realized. In my estimation, he’a about as Enlightened as Jed McKenna. (See my one-star review of “Spiritual Enlightenment, the Damnedest Thing.â€) He offers no description of his Enlightened state, and like Jed, has no public presence. If he were tuly Enlightened, he would doubtless be prominently, publicly present. In this book, he claims he was clueless after 27 years of spiritual seeking and wondered: “is the ‘I AM’ the ‘I thought’ or is the ‘I am’ just my present awareness.†But then he had a revelation and discovered the direct means to Eternal Bliss—“My awareness watching my awareness.†And presto! A few years later, he’s as Self-realized as Jesus, Buddha, and Ramana Maharshi. I say that’s about as likely as Berserk Obozo supporting Rand Paul rather than Mrs. Bubba Clinton for president in 2016.
Secondly, whereas Langford claims this text is replete with “hundreds of unique precious gems,†I couldn’t find a single one. All I found was a second-rate Advaita Vedanta text that endlessly repeated itself and never went beyond surface-level directives.
Because this is just a book review and not a book, I’ll critique just a small sample of Langford’s “gemsâ€:Â
Langford writes, “Thoughts are the words of your language in your mind.†This is wrong. Words are visual-auditory symbols that denote concepts. Thoughts are mental constructs involved in the process of perceptual-conceptual identification and integration.
Langford writes, “Ego is the thought I.†No, it’s not. Animals don’t have the thought I, but they clearly have egos. Langford continues, “Ego is thinking.†No, it’s not. Enlightened beings continue to think after Self-realization. In reality, the ego is the separate-self sense and activity, which doesn’t necessarily include thinking. A la Eckhart Tolle, Langford tells us, “The ego is insane. This is true for all humans.†Actually, the rational ego is very (biologically) sane, because it seeks to ethically preserve its own well-being as well as that of its loved ones, which, in the case of a humanitarian, can include the whole of humanity.
Speaking of thinking, it’s an activity that Langford doesn’t do all that well or deeply. For example, he informs us that the Self is a single awareness, but then, incongruently, he repeatedly informs us: “The Self is the background of awareness. But he never tells us what this background is or how it differs from the one awareness.
The biggest joke of this book is the primary method that Langford pushes: “Awareness watching awareness.†He tells us there is one awareness, but if this is the case, how can there be an awareness that observes and an awareness that is observed? In truth, awareness can never be an object; it is always the eternal Subject, which knows and sees but can never be known or seen.
According to Langford, “Many spiritual teachings have maps or lists of stages or signs of progress. All such maps or lists are false. There are no uniform signs or stages.†In constrast to Langford, I say there are uniform signs and stages, and this is the case because the gross and subtle structures of all humans are the same.
This text is bereft of an esoteric dimension. Unlike Ramana Maharshi’s teachings, there is nothing about Shakti, Kundalini, samskaras, the Heart-on-the-right, Amrita Nadi, the various samadhis, etc. In short, it is a superficial spiritual text.
Because this text is genuine Advaita Vedanta and not counterfeit neo-Advaita Vedanta, I would ordinarily, despite its flaws, give it two stars; but because the author makes untenable claims about his text’s greatness and his own Self-realization, I can only in good conscience give it one.
